Footage taken by a Russia Works drone in Homs, Syria gives a chilling insight into the state of the country after four years of civil war. Almost every building in the center of the city has been destroyed, with rubble littering the near-empty streets. Homs was dubbed the "capital of the revolution" when war broke out in 2011, but has since been captured by forces sympathetic to the Assad regime.New drone footage reveals the Syrian city of Kobani in ruins after years of heavy fighting. See this video on the link: http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2015/05/06/lklv-paton-walsh-syria-drone-damage.cnn

"Drone footage shows fierce clashes between Syrian Army & US-backed Islamic terrorists". Syria army offensive on rebel positions in Damascus suburbs Jobar, Harasta and Zamalka. Russian drone footage from places near Damascus Syria, shows the utter destruction the war has left behind. Compilation made by http://russiaworks.ru/

"In the summer of 2000, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a neo-conservative think tank riddled with soon to be Bush administration officials and advisors, issued a document calling for the radical restructuring of U.S. government and military policies. It advocated the massive expansion of defense spending, the re-invasion of Iraq, the military and economic securing of Afghanistan and Central Asia, increased centralized power and funds for the CIA, FBI, and NSA, among a slew of other policies that would, in the near future, be enacted upon their ascension to power. In the same document, they cite a potential problem with their plan. Referring to the goals of transforming the U.S. and global power structure, the paper states that because of the American Public's slant toward ideas of democracy and freedom, "this process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."PNAC members, and signees to its policy documents, include: Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wofowitz, JEB BUSH, Richard Perle, John Bolton, Scooter Libby, Elliot Abrams, Richard Armitage, William Bennet, William Kristol, and Zalmy Khalilzad - men with their hands deep in the private defense, oil, and multi-national corporate industries poised to make vast sums of money and secure huge tracts of power and influence if PNAC policy evolved into U.S. Government policy. Nine months after they rose to power, and assumed central positions of leadership up and down the spectrum of military, civilian, domestic, and international agencies, they got their 'New Pearl Harbor'. And PNAC policy essentially evolved into the Bush Administration's official agenda. While this alarmingly convenient coincidence does not prove anything in and of itself, it does establish motive. And it certainly would raise the eyebrows of concern from any serious investigator looking into the facts of September 11.Another alarming coincidence surrounding PNAC and September 11 has been revealed by attorney Stanley Hilton. Hilton, a graduate of Harvard Law School and former senior advisor and lead counsel for Bob Dole, attended the University of Chicago as an undergraduate in the 1960s. He studied under the infamous Leo Strauss, considered by many the father of neo-conservatism. Fellow students and acquaintances of Hilton's at the time included Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle. In an interview with journalist Alex Jones, Hilton reports that, under the supervision of Strauss, his senior thesis detailed a plan to establish a Presidential Dictatorship using a fabricated 'Pearl Harbor-like incident' as justification. He further states that he, Perle Wolfowitz, and other students of Strauss discussed an array of different plots and incidents 'like September 11th' and 'flying airplanes into buildings way back in the 60s'."- Johnny Mars:"Bush ADM. + Mossad + Silverstein + CIA + FBI + PNAC = 9 eleven."For the next parts....http://luogocomune.net/site/modules/sections/index.php?op=viewarticle&artid=167﻿

The photo of Paul Wolfowitz, Jewish Zionist Neocon (American master of geopolitics.) "The Wolfowitz Doctrine states that the “first objective” of American foreign and military policy is “to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat [to US unilateral action] on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.” (A “hostile power” is a country sufficiently strong to have a foreign policy independent from Washington’s.) The unilateral assertion of American power begin in earnest during the Clinton regime with the interventions in Yugoslavia, Serbia, Kosovo, and the no-fly zone imposed on Iraq. In 1997 the neoconservatives penned their “Project for a New American Century.” ​In 1998, three years prior to 9/11, the neoconservatives sent a letter to President Clinton calling for regime change in Iraq and “the removal of Saddam Hussein from power.” Neoconservatives set out their program for removing seven governments in five years. http://www.globalresearch.ca/we-re-going-to-take-out-7-countries-in-5-years-iraq-syria-lebanon-libya-somalia-sudan-iran/5166The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 gave birth to a dangerous American ideology called neoconservativism. The Soviet Union had served as a constraint on US unilateral action. With the removal of this constraint on Washington, neoconservatives declared their agenda of US world hegemony. ​America was now the “sole superpower,” the “uni-power,” that could act without restraint anywhere in the world.The Washington Post neoconservative journalist Charles Krauthammer summed up the “new reality” as follows:“We have overwhelming global power. We are history’s designated custodians of the international system. When the Soviet Union fell, something new was born, something utterly new–a uni-polar world dominated by a single superpower unchecked by any rival and with decisive reach in every corner of the globe.

The Pentagon and State Department, echoed as usual by the mainstream press, have expressed “concern” about Russian deliveries of the most modern tanks, fighter aircraft, surface-to-air missiles and other military equipment to Syria. They call them “counterproductive,” although it’s not clear what sort of productive cause they counter.They say these shipments—which they’ve tried to thwart by instructing NATO allies to deny delivery flights through their airspace—are likely “to prolong the war” in that tragically suffering country. Cable news anchors, with furrowed brows and glaring eyes, warn their viewers that Moscow’s stepped-up support for the Assad regime is a “worrisome development.”Moscow responds blandly that Russia (and the Soviet Union before it) have been allied to the Syrian government since the 1950s, when (like the U.S., actually) it saw the secular Baathists as a preferable alternative to Islamist throughout the region. Russia has been Syria’s main arms supplier for decades, and is (according to RT television) currently filling contracts with Damascus signed years ago.(Moscow might add that it has maintained a naval base at Tartus on the Syrian coast since 1971, and an airbase at Latakia. These are among Russia’s foreign military basis, which you can count on one hand. The U.S. in contrast has, as you know, well over 700 military bases in over 135 countries where around 300,000 U.S. troops are stationed.)The Russian Foreign Ministry has repeatedly urged the establishment of an international coalition to fight ISIL, which seems rational enough on the face of it. While it has not yet killed as many people as George W. Bush did, this well funded, growing organization, rapidly evolving into a viable state, is as manifestly cruel as the former U.S. president and his cabinet of amoral neocons hell-bent on imposing their own sort of caliphate on Southwest Asia. It is surely evil.​

Nikolai BOBKINThe White house is working on the 2016 fiscal year budget to begin on October 1, 2015. The draft budget is equal to $1, 8 trillion. It’ll be effective only in case «Americans feel safe home and abroad». «The geopolitical events of the past year only reinforce the need to ... level as opposed to current law,» the Pentagon said in a statement. Many billions are allocated to support the President’s national security strategy. The increased spending would add $38 billion for defense programs to hike the military budget up to the record high $561 billion. What poses a threat to the United States? Who is Obama going to fight during the last year of his presidency before he leaves in 2016? Normally the second term US presidents are called «lame ducks». Americans started to call him this name earlier than other presidents. America does not like him; the recent polls say the number of Americans who believe that Obama can serve the country well is diminishing. The presidential rating is record low. The polls say only 44% support Obama.

By Mahdi Darius NazemroayaThe United States is doing its best to estrange the European Union from Russia to get the upper hand in a free trade deal, and also, to manipulate European countries into buying America’s relatively more expensive natural gas.The TTIP and UkraineThe Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is a Euro-Atlantic free trade agreement that is the subject of ongoing negotiations between the US and the EU. The deadline for finalizing the TTIP free trade agreement is in 2015. Its goal is to create what is referred to as the Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Area (TAFTA) and to cement the European Union with the United States as one supranational trading bloc.

THEANTIMEDIA.ORG by Josh Paniagua And it gets a lot worse. Have you heard of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)? He's also a member of that notoriously blood thirsty organization. Capitol Hill isn’t presenting much competition for President Obama’s nominee for secretary of defense Ashton Carter. In fact, he isn’t facing a single significant threat to his campaign and has received bipartisan recognition. Surprised? I’m not. After years of badgering the White House about the repeal of the Budget Control Act (BCA), it seems that the Senate Armed Services Committee is happy to see Obama’s pick on their side.But the Pentagon’s love story isn’t what I want to focus on here. What concerns me is Ashton Carter’s apparent intentions to further empower the US military as an opponent to BCA and and his ambition to advance US globalization.During his hearing, Carter openly condemned the BCA, stating that former secretary Robert Gates was on the right track with his budget plan which required $70 billion in additional military spending.Yes, Carter. Let’s throw another $70 billion to the military when the US is on the brink of another economic crash. Add another $70 billion into an utterly failing foreign policy, that sounds about right.

“Our country has friends and allies in every corner of the world and our adversaries have few… all this makes me proud and hopeful and determined to grab hold of the bright opportunities in front of us, as well as to counter the very real dangers we face. These dangers… include continuing turmoil in the middle-east and North Africa and the malignant and savage terrorism emanating from it, an ongoing war in Afghanistan, the reversion to old-style security thinking in parts of Europe, the long standing tensions from the past and the rapid changes in Asia and the continuing need for the stabilizing roll of the United States in that region which is so important to the future, the continuing imperative to counter the spread-or-use of weapons of mass destruction.”Haven’t we all heard this before? We saw the same exact thing before invading Iraq, killing their leader, and scratching our heads when the WMD’s we went after were seemingly imaginary. This idea that it is our duty to invade and occupy countries simply because we don’t like what they’re doing is absurd, especially when one considers the vile and despicable things that our own politicians have done. Torture reports, anyone?Carter has made it clear that when he is confirmed as new Secretary of Defense, he will see to it that the permanent termination of ISIL/ISIS becomes top priority. I find this part to be particularly interesting, only because the day immediately before his hearing, ISIS released a video of the execution of a Jordanian pilot causing John McCain to open the hearing with a 10 minute spew about the dangers of ISIS and his irritation at the BCA.Ashton Carter, who unsurprisingly has received a free-pass from the corporate media, is also a member of theCouncil on Foreign Relations (CFR) and a former employee of Goldman Sachs. He also has deep ties to military contracting firms and the Military-Industrial-Complex, which creates an inherent conflict of interest with his soon-to-be job of Secretary of Defense. Surprised?Is it just me or do you smell war? Watch the whole confirmation hearing here. February 5, 2014 http://theantimedia.org/secretary-of-defense-ashton-carter-goldman-sachs/